mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

ReAGent: A Model-agnostic Feature Attribution Method for Generative Language Models

arXiv 2402.00794 ↗First posted 1 Feb 2024cs.CL cs.AI cs.LGcited by 12

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Feature attribution methods (FAs), such as gradients and attention, are widely employed approaches to derive the importance of all input features to the model predictions. Existing work in natural language processing has mostly focused on developing and testing FAs for encoder-only language models (LMs) in classification tasks. However, it is unknown if it is faithful to use these FAs for decoder-only models on text generation, due to the inherent differences between model architectures and task settings respectively. Moreover, previous work has demonstrated that there is no `one-wins-all' FA across models and tasks. This makes the selection of a FA computationally expensive for large LMs since input importance derivation often requires multiple forward and backward passes including gradient computations that might be prohibitive even with access to large compute. To address these issues, we present a model-agnostic FA for generative LMs called Recursive Attribution Generator (ReAGent). Our method updates the token importance distribution in a recursive manner. For each update, we compute the difference in the probability distribution over the vocabulary for predicting the next token between using the original input and using a modified version where a part of the input is replaced with RoBERTa predictions. Our intuition is that replacing an important token in the context should have resulted in a larger change in the model's confidence in predicting the token than replacing an unimportant token. Our method can be universally applied to any generative LM without accessing internal model weights or additional training and fine-tuning, as most other FAs require. We extensively compare the faithfulness of ReAGent with seven popular FAs across six decoder-only LMs of various sizes. The results show that our method consistently provides more faithful token importance distributions.

Key facts. Cited by 12 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 30 of its 46 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 1 Feb 2024.

Builds on

30 of 46 references.

References · 30

  1. 2020Language Models are Few-Shot Learnerscited by 32,199
  2. 2016Grad-CAM: Visual Explanations from Deep Networks via Gradient-based Localizationcited by 6,690
  3. 2017A Unified Approach to Interpreting Model Predictionscited by 6,488
  4. 2016"Why Should I Trust You?": Explaining the Predictions of Any Classifiercited by 5,040
  5. 2013Efficient Estimation of Word Representations in Vector Spacecited by 4,346
  6. 2022OPT: Open Pre-trained Transformer Language Modelscited by 3,464
  7. 2017Axiomatic Attribution for Deep Networkscited by 3,350
  8. 2013Visualizing and Understanding Convolutional Networkscited by 2,278
  9. 2020Towards Faithfully Interpretable NLP Systems: How should we define and evaluate faithfulness?cited by 590
  10. 2019ERASER: A Benchmark to Evaluate Rationalized NLP Modelscited by 523
  11. 2017The (Un)reliability of saliency methodscited by 331
  12. 2016Rationalizing Neural Predictionscited by 281
18 more
  1. 2021The GEM Benchmark: Natural Language Generation, its Evaluation and Metricscited by 239
  2. 2015Visualizing and Understanding Neural Models in NLPcited by 199
  3. 2020A Diagnostic Study of Explainability Techniques for Text Classificationcited by 158
  4. 2019Interpretable Neural Predictions with Differentiable Binary Variablescited by 126
  5. 2020The elephant in the interpretability room: Why use attention as explanation when we have saliency methods?cited by 122
  6. 2020Learning to Faithfully Rationalize by Constructioncited by 113
  7. 2021The Out-of-Distribution Problem in Explainability and Search Methods for Feature Importance Explanationscited by 86
  8. 2023Inseq: An Interpretability Toolkit for Sequence Generation Modelscited by 78
  9. 2016Investigating the influence of noise and distractors on the interpretation of neural networkscited by 54
  10. 2014Extraction of Salient Sentences from Labelled Documentscited by 50
  11. 2021TellMeWhy: A Dataset for Answering Why-Questions in Narrativescited by 27
  12. 2021Rationales for Sequential Predictionscited by 26
  13. 2022ferret: a Framework for Benchmarking Explainers on Transformerscited by 26
  14. 2023Incorporating Attribution Importance for Improving Faithfulness Metricscited by 14
  15. 2021Investigating sanity checks for saliency maps with image and text classificationcited by 11
  16. 2013Word Emdeddings through Hellinger PCAcited by 10
  17. 2021Flexible Instance-Specific Rationalization of NLP Modelscited by 10
  18. 2021Attention vs non-attention for a Shapley-based explanation methodcited by 3

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2024: 2; 2025: 5; 2026: 5.

12 papers.